EM1.3 - is it worth the upgrade cost from the EM1.2 ?

Qwntm

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jan 26, 2017
Messages
195
Real Name
Edward
I haven’t read the whole thread @pdk42 and this might not be particularly relevant to you with the Mk3 but I did perceive a slight but noticeable improvement in image quality in terms of DR and slightly more room for processing when I had the EM1X compared to the EM1 Mk2
I am not too technically minded about processing and facts and figures etc and therefore cannot put my finger on exactly what had improved but I was pleased with the output I was getting from my jpegs and from results when processing them
I’m not sure whether the improvements I saw would translate to the Mk3 but assume that the latest mods would be common to both ?

Yeh, I totally understand. I really enjoyed the EM1 Mark II and the images were great. but the Mark III images just seem more satisfying. It just sems a little easier to get the results I'm looking for. Not sure why.

Also, the OP didn't mention Starry Sky AF. Maybe not something to upgrade over, but another small thing that adds up in the end.

The menu button is a bit of a pain, but much better than cameras that have the image review button there. If a button had to go left, the Menu button is an OK choice.

I wish the 2nd card slot was UHS II, That to me seems like a missed opportunity. The LCD vs OLED EVF I'm nuetral about because there may be performance readons that Olympus chose LCD deliberately.

The camera is blazingly fast. To the point where shooting my XPro3 has become some what annoying waiting for the camera to write to the card! The EM1 MIII is a millisecond, and the Xpro3 seems slugardly at 1/2-1 second write times. LOL!
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,522
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
I haven’t read the whole thread @pdk42 and this might not be particularly relevant to you with the Mk3 but I did perceive a slight but noticeable improvement in image quality in terms of DR and slightly more room for processing when I had the EM1X compared to the EM1 Mk2
I am not too technically minded about processing and facts and figures etc and therefore cannot put my finger on exactly what had improved but I was pleased with the output I was getting from my jpegs and from results when processing them
I’m not sure whether the improvements I saw would translate to the Mk3 but assume that the latest mods would be common to both ?
Maybe it's psychosomatic or something like that :), but I'm finding the converse. I have a low tolerance threshold for blown highlights - esp skies - and I'm finding it very easy to blow skies with the EM1.3, even when I'm being cautious with the over exposure blinkies. I even spotted that I was getting posterisation on bright parts of clouds, but determined eventually that it was due to over driving of my monitor (contrast too high). That's my fault of course, but I can't recall similar problems with the EM1.2. However, that seems implausible, so I'm thinking that I'm probably just looking for things more closely than I was before.

But having said all that, I'm definitely finding that pulling highlights back to get good looking cloud contrast used to be fairly easy with the EM1.2, but the EM1.3 just leaves them washed out unless I pull exposure back - which then just creates problems in the shadows.

Maybe Adobe's raw processor just isn't optimised for the EM1.3 yet? - dunno. Maybe I'll give Workplace a try.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,522
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
The tone curve has been shifted to the left with the MkIII, Paul.

Probably in response to the 'criticism' that the E-M1 MkII had too much headroom ... :rolleyes: :shakehead: :rolleyes:
Yes John - I guess that's the root of it. I knew this before I got the camera though, and I've been consciously pulling the exposure back - maybe I just need to try harder. Perhaps time to dial back the threshold for the over exposure indicators!
 

retiredfromlife

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 15, 2016
Messages
4,999
Location
Sydney, Australia
Yes John - I guess that's the root of it. I knew this before I got the camera though, and I've been consciously pulling the exposure back - maybe I just need to try harder. Perhaps time to dial back the threshold for the over exposure indicators!
If you don't mind me asking what do you set your warnings to?
Blown highlights are a problem for me on both Panasonic and Olympus so I know it must be my use of the cameras but I have tried to adjust the histogram warnings but so far not much luck.
I have tried highlight - shadows set to <250> - <5> & <245 - 10> I like it that I can see the warning for both on Olympus but I cant really find a good balance.
I had less problems in Europe, not sure if Australian sun is harsher, probably just wishful thinking on my part
.
BTW,
I put a footnote under my post when I quoted you last time as I think it may not have come across correctly.
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
3,414
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
Don't expose to the right ... ;).

Trust the camera's metering. Learn how to use it, if you haven't already.

If necessary, you can do a global exposure adjustment, if it really bugs you.

My E-510 blew JPEG highlights very easily, specially at ISO 100 (actually ISO 125 for that model). Other ISO values were accurate.
 

retiredfromlife

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 15, 2016
Messages
4,999
Location
Sydney, Australia
When I try to expose for the right I blow the lot. I tend to underexpose now.
Getting the exposure right for the balance between highlights and shadows is something I just cant come to grips with.
Never had that problem back in the film days, but back then I was no were near as fussy as I am now. I think I just have rose coloured glasses on for how good the old 64 kodachrome slides were.
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
3,414
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
When I try to expose for the right I blow the lot. I tend to underexpose now.

DON'T expose to the right!!

Getting the exposure right for the balance between highlights and shadows is something I just cant come to grips with.

I change metering modes more often than ISO, and almost never use exposure compensation.

Those five metering modes are there for a reason ...
I recommend to everyone who doesn't already use them to do so.

Matrix (my normal default), centre-weighted spot, centre spot, high key and low key. All meter quite differently.

Never had that problem back in the film days, but back then I was no were near as fussy as I am now. I think I just have rose coloured glasses on for how good the old 64 kodachrome slides were.

Didn't we all? Scanning them at 5400 dpi/16 bit/wide gamut makes one realise just how bad they really were when viewed at point blank range. Even pushed Ektachrome was borderline compared with modern digital shots.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,522
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Well, I think we could all have a good debate about metering! I'm quite the opposite of you on this John. I think the meter is sort of irrelevant when you've got live view - the histogram and over/ under exposure indicators tell you so much more than a meter reading. And of course, the meter reading on mirrorless cameras is derived from the live view, just using some algorithm that is unpublished.

Of course in film and DSLR days, it was a completely different story and metering was an essential technology if you wanted accuracy and consistency in your photographs.
 

Robstar1963

Mad on Motorsports
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
3,649
Location
Isle of Wight England UK
Real Name
Rob
Maybe it's psychosomatic or something like that :), but I'm finding the converse. I have a low tolerance threshold for blown highlights - esp skies - and I'm finding it very easy to blow skies with the EM1.3, even when I'm being cautious with the over exposure blinkies. I even spotted that I was getting posterisation on bright parts of clouds, but determined eventually that it was due to over driving of my monitor (contrast too high). That's my fault of course, but I can't recall similar problems with the EM1.2. However, that seems implausible, so I'm thinking that I'm probably just looking for things more closely than I was before.

But having said all that, I'm definitely finding that pulling highlights back to get good looking cloud contrast used to be fairly easy with the EM1.2, but the EM1.3 just leaves them washed out unless I pull exposure back - which then just creates problems in the shadows.

Maybe Adobe's raw processor just isn't optimised for the EM1.3 yet? - dunno. Maybe I'll give Workplace a try.

Hi @pdk42 now I come to think about it and you having mentioned blown highlights I have had the same issue
I have trouble with white crash helmets on otherwise what appear to be well exposed images
I’ve had this on my XT3 regularly but I also recalled noting this when processing my EM1X images and comparing to the XT3 and thinking that perhaps the XT3 wasnt doing anything unusual after all - but perhaps in truth both the XT3 and the EM1X ( and the EM1 Mk3) have similar issues with blowing highlights ?
I’ve gone into my flikr account and copied this one over as an example to support what you are saying
A lot of my pictures don’t have issues as they are mostly multi coloured subjects on simple backgrounds with very few having any sky so not a big issue - the general Image quality did seem to be better because I think the shadows possibly work better and DR seemed a bit better but I agree that this potential highlight issue would perhaps be more of a problem for landscape and other shots
(Please bear in mind that this jpeg image has been processed in PS and I may have been in some way heavy handed causing the issue myself but saying that the bike and rider do look balanced in terms of exposure and brightness ?)
PS the image was taken on a dull day with few sunny intervals !
26902257-44D9-4666-A2CB-844E8FD34991.jpeg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
3,414
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
Well, I think we could all have a good debate about metering! I'm quite the opposite of you on this John. I think the meter is sort of irrelevant when you've got live view - the histogram and over/ under exposure indicators tell you so much more than a meter reading. And of course, the meter reading on mirrorless cameras is derived from the live view, just using some algorithm that is unpublished.

Of course in film and DSLR days, it was a completely different story and metering was an essential technology if you wanted accuracy and consistency in your photographs.
Well, Paul, it seems that quite a few people have considerable difficulty getting satisfactory exposures. I don't, and I use the camera's metering tools to judge those, not some rule of thumb and eye balling the scene. I do make plenty of other errors from time to time, but I tend to get exposures right almost all the time.

We have been gifted the most incredible light meters ever made - they actually give us a picture based on their reading! How good is that ... :dance3: :drinks:. Why resist using them?
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
3,414
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
Hi @pdk42 now I come to think about it and you having mentioned blown highlights I have had the same issue
I have trouble with white crash helmets on otherwise what appear to be well exposed images
I’ve had this on my XT3 regularly but I also recalled noting this when processing my EM1X images and comparing to the XT3 and thinking that perhaps the XT3 wasnt doing anything unusual after all - but perhaps in truth both the XT3 and the EM1X ( and the EM1 Mk3) have similar issues with blowing highlights ?
I’ve gone into my flikr account and copied this one over as an example to support what you are saying
A lot of my pictures don’t have issues as they are mostly multi coloured subjects on simple backgrounds with very few having any sky so not a big issue - the general Image quality did seem to be better because I think the shadows possibly work better and DR seemed a bit better but I agree that this potential highlight issue would perhaps be more of a problem for landscape and other shots
(Please bear in mind that this jpeg image has been processed in PS and I may have been in some way heavy handed causing the issue myself but saying that the bike and rider do look balanced in terms of exposure and brightness ?)
PS the image was taken on a dull day with few sunny intervals !
View attachment 822763
Rob, for this shot, I would have used the RAW, and pulled back the highlights and whites a tad in PS to get that helmet under control. The RAW would give you a lot more data to work with, and probably a better outcome for the helmet.

[EDIT] I downloaded this pretty small JPG and edited it in ACR. Even with this tiny amount of data to work with, I managed to recover some detail on the helmet.

Used a Graduated Neutral density filter on the top part, then did some adjustments to whites and highlights and exposure.

Globally applied some adjustment using the same sliders to re-balance the adjustments made above. Improved it a bit. A RAW file would give far more latitude. [end edit]
 
Last edited:

hoggdoc

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
247
Location
Longview, Washington USA
Real Name
Wayne
Thanks Paul,

I'm coming from EM1's .... I hated the swivel screen on the Mk2 so gave that a miss. However, looks like I will have to swallow it so I'm looking at the Mk3 / EM1x. Price here is identical - when you add in the battery peck and extra battery + there is a $500 cashback on the X.
I agree with you, hate the swivel screen as well. Really only good for those doing selfie videos.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,522
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
I agree with you, hate the swivel screen as well. Really only good for those doing selfie videos.
I'm no lover of the swivel screen either - but I live with it. It does have one advantage though - low-down shots in portrait orientation are very easy to get with a swivel screen. I really wish that Oly could do something similar to the design that Fuji use.
 

BushmanOrig

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
533
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried

Something is not right? Anyone tried comparison tests with the EM1 MKII and the MKIII.
I have a G9 and the MKII and will do a quick test...
The EM1 MKIII "standard exp" seems to have loads of spare DR?

I took a few images with the G9 and the EM1 II. See my comments here

_5180004a.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,522
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Well, I'm now getting some time under my belt with the EM1.3 and I can absolutely say that I need to modify things from what I did on the EM1.2 to stop getting blown highlights. Oly have definitely tweaked the exposure/metering/histogram strategy. I can make a good case to say that for landscape shooting if you rely on the "ESP" metering mode then I can pretty much guarantee that you'll get blown skies that can't be recovered later (I'm talking raw and processing with LR etc and using the highlight recovery tool). It's probably fine for wildlife, portraits, street and many other genres, but if high DR landscapes and avoiding blown highlights is your curse, then the EM1.3's ESP metering is too aggressive in most cases.

I suspect few landscape photographers rely on a straight meter reading anyhow, but if it's of any interest to anyone, I've described below my own technique and what I've done on the EM1.3 to fix the blown highlight issue. TL;DR - adjust down the histogram threshold for highlights to 245!

My basic problem is that using the EM1.3 in day-to-day shooting and using exactly the same exposure techniques I've used for the last three years with the EM1.2 (and many other Oly cameras before it), I'm finding way too many shots where highlights have been blown.

My approach to exposure is to rely heavily on the "blinkies" (over-exposure indicators that show over-exposed areas in orange on the display). I mostly shoot static scenes so this works very well because I have the time to adjust what the meter is telling me. I just spin the exp comp dial (rear dial in my setup) until the blinkies on important areas (usually sky) are only just showing (or even a little under). It almost doesn't matter what the metering thinks - since I'm using my own interpretation based on evaluating the exposure indicators. This is pretty much essential for high DR scenes since no meter reading will be "correct".

This has worked perfectly with every Oly camera I've had from the little EPL-5 which got me into Oly and m43 in the first place. It worked really well on the EM1.2 since I knew that even with the blinkies showing, I still had a lot of latitude to pull the highlights back. On the EM1.3 though, I'm blowing highlights.

Of course, this isn't to say that there's anything "wrong" with the camera - it's just a case of needing to reduce the exposure. Basically, I need to adapt my technique to fit the EM1.3. The "Exposure shift" feature won't help since, as per above description, I don't really use the meter anyhow. What's needed is to reduce the level at which the blinkies show. This is controlled by the "Histogram Settings" in menu D3.

To work out the level to set it to, I did a little controlled experiment shooting my computer monitor and using the same technique described above. The result is that with the threshold set at 245, I can reliably recover highlights from raw files in LR. Anything higher leads to some degree of highlight saturation. I determined this by eyeballing, but at some point I'll go looking at the raw values to be sure.

So, there you have it. A small victory that's probably inconsequential for most, but maybe my ramblings will be of interest to at least one you on the forum!
 
Last edited:

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,522
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Something is not right? Anyone tried comparison tests with the EM1 MKII and the MKIII.
I have a G9 and the MKII and will do a quick test...
The EM1 MKIII "standard exp" seems to have loads of spare DR?
I don't think we can read too much into that Youtube piece so far as stills photography is concerned. The author is clearly just testing video capabilities. It's clear that the EM1.3 has a different (and worse!) auto exposure strategy on video compared to the G9. But for stills shooting we have the time to tweak things so it doesn't really matter.

I took a few images with the G9 and the EM1 II. See my comments here

Interesting difference between the EM1.2 and the G9 though on your shot of the tower. Are these raws both processed with the same tool, or OOC JPEGs?

BTW - on your linked Blog, I notice that Robin Wong (who as you say is a very experienced photographer) is saying exactly what I said months ago - ETTR only works at base ISO! You ask: "Did Robin Wong make a mistake? ". I'd say - "definitely not"! He provided evidence, as did I in this post.

Something is not right? Anyone tried comparison tests with the EM1 MKII and the MKIII.
I wish I'd kept my EM1.2 for longer so that I could do some back-to-back shots, but alas - it's gone to a new owner!
 
Last edited:

Alan_N

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
114
Location
Yorkshire UK
Real Name
Alan
Not. Used either camera, coming from a slightly different angle currently use G80 and thinking about getting an Em1 just trying to decide between mk2 and 3. I was leaning towards the mk2 mainly due to cost. Most of my lens are Lumix. If I did body only and not double up on glass 12-60 lumix and 12-40 Pro I might go for the Mk 3 Or mk2 and get the 12-40 or maybe 12-100 (scratch head)
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,652
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Not. Used either camera, coming from a slightly different angle currently use G80 and thinking about getting an Em1 just trying to decide between mk2 and 3. I was leaning towards the mk2 mainly due to cost. Most of my lens are Lumix. If I did body only and not double up on glass 12-60 lumix and 12-40 Pro I might go for the Mk 3 Or mk2 and get the 12-40 or maybe 12-100 (scratch head)

All 3 are good choices, but for different reasons. And depending on what you shoot, there are argument for all three lenses.
The 12-60 Lumix is my GP travel lens.
Warning the 12-100 is not a small/light lens. I would not carry mine as a GP lens.
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom